addition to editors note

Per request at the meeting — here is the additional language suggested for the intro paragraph to make it clear that we are doing this using a process different than out generally agreed process of experimental provisions

Special Note  - on use of different process for this version

Ordinarily, with experimental provisions we provide concerns and questions for each provision.  In this case, we are very early in the process of working on WCAG 3.0 and it is the "list of all the possible topics we might cover” that is being experimentally released for comment.   Please consider all items in the list as experimental at this point and feel free to provide your input on any concerns or issues on any and all — as well as noting anything that is missing.

The current EDITORS NOTE is shown below with this text inserted where I think it would go. 



I don’t usually like to add text to a note — since it decreases reading of the note.  But in this case, I  think that we need them to know that all is experimental and to comment constructively rather than panic thinking these are all close to final (as out 2.x drafts have been) — and push back rather than inform and contribute.



EDITOR'S NOTE <https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag3/30-april-meeting/guidelines/index.html#issue-container-generatedID>
The individuals and organizations that use WCAG vary widely and include web designers and developers, policy makers, purchasing agents, teachers, and students. To meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance will be provided including functional categories of disabilities, general guidelines, outcomes that can be tested, a rich collection of methods, resource links, and code samples.

The following guidelines are an initial list of potential outcomes that the working group will be exploring. The goal is to guide the next phase of work. They should be considered drafts and should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3.

The outcomes listed below have not been refined and do not include essential exceptions or methods. Some outcomes may be best addressed by authoring tools or at the platform level. Many outcomes need additional work to better define the scope and to ensure they apply correctly to multiple languages, cultures, and writing sytsems. We will address these questions as we further explore each outcome. 

Special Note  - on use of different process for this version

Ordinarily, with experimental provisions we provide concerns and questions for each provision.  In this case, we are very early in the process of working on WCAG 3.0 and it is the "list of all the possible topics we might cover” that is being experimentally released for comment.   Please consider all items in the list as experimental at this point and feel free to provide your input on any concerns or issues on any and all — as well as noting anything that is missing.

Please consider the following questions when reviewing this list of outcomes:

What outcomes are needed to make web content accessible and are missing from this list?
What research supports or refutes these outcomes?
Additional Research

One goal of publishing this list is to identify gaps in current research and request assistance filling those gaps.

Editor's notes indicate the outcomes within this list where the working group has not found enough research to fully validate the guidance and create methods to support it. If you know of existing research or if you are interested in conducting research in this area, please file a GitHub issue <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/issues> or send email to public-agwg-comments@w3.org <mailto:public-agwg-comments@w3.org?subject=WCAG%203.0%20public%20comment> (comment archive <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-agwg-comments/>).